National Land Commission v Kamau & another (Constitutional Petition E076 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3396 (KLR)

While an affidavit for a juristic entity must be sworn by an authorised person, the law no longer requires a formal resolution in every instance. Arthi Highway Developers establishes that authority is presumed unless the contrary is demonstrated. The 2nd Applicant merely asserted lack of authority without any supporting material, so the court could not speculate and declined to strike out the affidavit.

Rule 5 of the Mutunga Rules permits joinder of any person whose presence is necessary. No evidence showed the Applicants were personally served or that Akwuyanga was authorised to receive documents for them, so they lacked actual notice and moved promptly upon learning of the Petition. Escheat requires inquiry into heirs and occupiers, so persons claiming occupation must be heard; fraud allegations go to the merits, not to whether they should be heard.

Both suits concern L.R. No. 2327/72 and the proprietorship of that land is the central controversy, albeit under different legal principles (escheat versus adverse possession). Common questions of fact and law arise, and separate proceedings risk inconsistent findings. No prejudice would be occasioned; consolidation promotes efficiency, avoids duplication of evidence, and allows distinct legal principles to be handled in a consolidated judgment.